IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 76629 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 43-44/ST/COMM./2024 dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner, C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Patna-I Commissionerate, 1^st Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Birchand Patel Path, Patna – 800 001)

M/s. Mars Mountain Security Services Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant

203, Hem Plaza, Frazer Road, Patna – 800 001 (Bihar)

VERSUS Principal Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and C.Ex. : Respondent Patna-I Commissionerate, 1^st Floor, C.R. Building (Annexe), Birchand Patel Path, Patna – 800 001 (Bihar)

APPEARANCE:

Shri Ankit Kanodia, Advocate, Shri Deo Prakash Singh, Advocate Smt. Megha Agarwal, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S.K. Dikshit, Authorized Representative, For the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75451 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 12.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 30.03.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]

The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 43-44/ST/COMM./2024 dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner, C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Patna-I Commissionerate, 1^st Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Birchand Patel Path, Patna – 800 001, wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,27,22,387/- for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10, along with interest and penalties u/s 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

2. The facts of the case are that M/s Mars Mountain Security Services Pvt. Ltd., 203, Hem Plaza, Frazer Road, Patna – 800 001 (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) is engaged in providing Manpower Recruitment, Security and allied services. The appellant is registered under Service Tax.

2.1. Two Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation. One Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2010 was issued covering the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 and another Show Cause Notice dated 11.07.2011 was issued covering the period from 2008-09 to 2009-10. 2.2. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original No. 18- 19/ST/Aayukt/2100 dated 09.12.2011 (the first adjudication order) confirmed the demand(s) raised in the Notices. On the appellant's earlier appeal, CESTAT, Kolkata vide Order dated 02.05.2024 set aside the said order and remanded the matter for a decision. Accordingly, personal hearing was held on

14.08.2024.

2.3. On de novo adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority again confirmed the entire demand vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 12.09.2024. The appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal challenging the said Order-in-Original.

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the demand has been raised on the allegation that the appellant has suppressed the taxable value by showing a lower figure in ST-3 Returns compared to the gross income as per Audited Balance Sheet, resulting in short payment of Service Tax. In this regard, the appellant has made the following submissions:

• Service Tax is payable on cash basis (i.e., on actual receipt of consideration), whereas books of accounts and Balance Sheet are maintained on accrual basis. The two figures therefore cannot match by their very nature and any comparison is inherently flawed.

• The gross amount in the Balance Sheet also includes 'reimbursable expenses' such as the cost of diesel supplied to clients. Such reimbursements do not form part of taxable value.

• It is a settled principle of law that Service Tax can be levied only upon clear identification of service provider, service recipient and consideration paid. Demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of a difference in two sets of documents without establishing that such difference represents taxable services rendered and consideration received therefor.

• Reliance is placed on CESTAT